Pilot-wave theory and quantum fields
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pilot-wave theories provide possible solutions to the measurement problem. In such theories, quantum systems are not only described by the state vector but also by some additional variables. These additional variables, also called beables, can be particle positions, field configurations, strings, etc. In this paper we focus our attention on pilot-wave theories in which the additional variables are field configurations. The first such theory was proposed by Bohm for the free electromagnetic field. Since Bohm, similar pilot-wave theories have been proposed for other quantum fields. The purpose of this paper is to present an overview and further development of these proposals. We discuss various bosonic quantum field theories such as the Schrödinger field, the free electromagnetic field, scalar quantum electrodynamics and the Abelian Higgs model. In particular, we compare the pilot-wave theories proposed by Bohm and by Valentini for the electromagnetic field, finding that they are equivalent. We further discuss the proposals for fermionic fields by Holland and Valentini. In the case of Holland's model we indicate that further work is required in order to show that the model is capable of reproducing the standard quantum predictions. We also consider a similar model, which does not seem to reproduce the standard quantum predictions. In the case of Valentini's model we point out a problem that seems hard to overcome.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".